Skip to main content
Glama
AarsyDesign

PushNotif MCP Server

by AarsyDesign
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_billing_and_qris_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check QRIS top-up payment status, credit balance, ledger history, and invoice PDFs to audit PushNotif billing. Read-only, zero credit cost.

Instructions

Check QRIS top-up order payment status (PENDING or PAID), current credit balance, credit ledger history, and official PDF invoice URLs. Use this tool to verify whether a QRIS invoice from create_qris_invoice has been paid or to audit credit usage; do not use it to create a new top-up invoice (use create_qris_invoice instead). Read-only operation requiring PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY with 0 credit cost. Returns JSON { credits_balance, orders: [{ id, amount_rp, credits_added, status, invoice_pdf_url, created_at }], recent_ledger: [...] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
order_idNoOptional specific QRIS order ID (format ord_xxxx from create_qris_invoice) to inspect; omit to list recent orders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / order_id / description
      Previous value: -"Opsional: ID tagihan QRIS tertentu yang ingin dicek (misal: ord_xxxx)"New value: +"Optional specific QRIS order ID (format ord_xxxx from create_qris_invoice) to inspect; omit to list recent orders"
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: it requires PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY and costs 0 credits. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and outputs, then usage guidance, then the return shape. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the return-shape sentence is arguably the least essential given it duplicates what a caller would learn anyway, but it earns its place with no output schema present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by spelling out the returned JSON structure (credits_balance, orders fields, recent_ledger). Combined with auth requirements, cost, and clear usage boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single order_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the ord_xxxx format and the omit-to-list behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (QRIS top-up order payment status), then enumerates the exact outputs: payment status, credit balance, ledger history, and PDF invoice URLs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_qris_invoice, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('verify whether a QRIS invoice ... has been paid or to audit credit usage') and when-not-to-use ('do not use it to create a new top-up invoice'), naming the alternative tool create_qris_invoice. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools